G.R. No. 213910 - VINSON* D. YOUNG A.K.A. BENZON ONG AND BENNY YOUNG A.K.A. BENNY ONG, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, a criminal complaint for violation of Sections 4 (a) and (e) in relation to Sections 6 (a) and (c) of RA 9208 was filed against them, before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Cebu City (OCP), docketed as NPS Docket No. VII-09-INV-IID00605. [14] In defense, Vinson denied ownership of Jaguar and asserted that he had sold his rights and interests therein to one Charles Theodore Rivera pursuant to a Deed of Assignment [15] dated December 14, 2009 (December 14, 2009 Deed of Assignent). Not being the manager nor owner of Jaguar, therefore, he had no control and supervision over the AAA Group, with whom he denied acquaintance. Similarly, Benny claimed that he was neither the owner nor manager of Jaguar and was not even present during the raid. He raised "mistake in identity" as defense, stressing that he was not the same person identified by the AAA Group in their respective affidavits. [16] During the pendency of the preliminary investigation, or on May 31, 2011, the AAA Group submitted affidavits [17] stating that their previous affidavits were vitiated and not of their own free will and voluntary deed, [18] effectively recanting the same. The OCP Ruling In a Resolution [19] dated October 27, 2011, the OCP found probable cause and ordered the indictment of petitioners, Tico, and Ann for violation of Sections 4 (a) and (e) in relation to Sections 6 (a) and (c) of RA 9208. It found that the receipt and subsequent recovery of the marked money from Balili constituted prima facie evidence that there was a transaction to engage in sexual service for a fee. [20] It also held that the documentary evidence pertaining to Jaguar's business operations, as well as the positive identification made by the AAA Group, sufficiently established petitioners as its owners. Besides, it noted that Vinson's defense - i.e. , that he had divested his interests in Jaguar - was evidentiary in nature and hence, must be threshed out in a full-blown trial. Moreover, while the AAA Group had since retracted their initial statements, their retractions were found to hold no probative value. Finally, while the OCP ruled that the crime of human trafficking was qualified for being committed by a syndicate, or in large scale - carried out by three (3) or more persons - it, however, did not appreciate the minority of EEE and FFF as a qualifying circumstance, not having been substantiated by sufficient and competent evidence. [21] Separately, both parties moved for reconsideration. [22] In a Resolution [23] dated April 23, 2012, the OCP modified its previous ruling and considered the minority of EEE and FFF based on the certified true copies of their certificates of live birth [24] as additional qualifying circumstance. On May 29, 2012, the corresponding information [25] was filed before the RTC, docketed as Crim. Case No. CBU-96106. On June 18, 2012, petitioners filed an omnibus motion [26] for a judicial determination of probable cause, praying that the issuance of the corres